Too Soon to be Mourning Obamacare: We Still have it
The Washington Post's Greg Sargent is already gleefully anticipating the suffering of the "poor, white Trump voters," who will be hurt by a repeal of Obamacare, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/29/obamacare-is-probably-toast-and-a-lot-of-poor-white-trump-voters-will-get-hurt/?utm_term=.1da080a1de60.
As a new "faux" liberal, (I choose to identify with the true liberals not the new faux liberals), sadly, Greg Sargent's article is EXHIBIT A today of the persistence of Obamacare fanboys, the stubborn adherence to the Obamacare lies that even all these years later some are using in cheap imitation of President Obama's artfully untruthful selling of his plan to the American people years ago.
Mr. Sargent plunges into the ONLY lasting justification given for Obamacare as its original promises were proven false, the enrollment spiel. Why? Because on other fronts it failed for most Americans who are paying more for worse coverage, the same old insurance game. Obamacare did not save every family $2,500 a year in premiums, quite the contrary. Obamacare did NOT hold costs down, they increased even as coverage worsened, the same old problem. Obamacare did not get participation on its exchanges either by insurers or individuals in the manner it hoped and the idea of the single risk pool never got off the ground as young-healthies in the awful Obama economy sought cheaper coverage through their parents, through schools, through short-term health insurance plans and if those didn't work by choosing the cheapest of the metal plans offered, the bronze.
And then Mr. Sargent points to the phony "core philosophical difference," between the new faux liberals and conservatives. Here's the problem, Obamacare was and is a mess largely because BOTH Democrats AND Republicans out-maneuvered the American people and partnered with INSURANCE COMPANIES to save both government and insurers money.
I wonder where Mr. Sargent is experiencing what he describes when he says that "conservatives want far less in government spending and regulations designed to cover poor and sick people, protect consumers and enforce a minimum standard for coverage."
After all, the DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION (government) stopped counting how much it spent on infrastructure, staffing, and sweet federal benefits for its employees even as it bragged that it had "SAVED" on PER CAPITA spending for everyday citizens. Does Mr. Sargent understand that the government savings on how much it spends on people's medical bills in an environment with rising prices for those medical services is only accomplished by covering less? Apparently not.
As far as those poor poor people, did Mr. Sargent read what his fellow prevaricator, Jonathan Gruber, who talked about scamming us because of the stupidity of American voters had to explain this year regarding Medicaid enrollment with increases of 12 million "even though two-fifths of states are still unwilling to take advantage of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and the massive federal funding that comes with it," ttp://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/obamacare-what-we-didnt-see-coming-000170? Apparently not, as Gruber attributed the bursting enrollment to people who were ALREADY eligible for Medicaid who came "out of the woodwork" and enrolled. OK, so lots of Medicaid enrollees won't lose coverage.
And lest the faux liberal forget, Obamacare subsidies as well as its individual mandate was largely unconcerned with poor Americans who can't pay for health insurance. Perhaps Sargent should refresh his memory to see who's EXEMPT from both coverage and the fines for non-coverage because they're just too poor (go to healthcare.gov) including victims of domestic violence, the homeless, those who have had their utilities turned off, those who have been evicted and those who have unpaid medical debt. That's a lot of poor people who Obama essentially thumbed his nose at because, let's face, you can't get blood from a stone.
As for the kindly "minimum coverage standards," they became another tool used by payers, both government and insurers to stick it to us, encouraging defensive medicine (by guaranteeing payment for testing while making sure we pay more for NEEDED care), forcing us to jump through hoops in order to obtain care or even coverage as employers cooperate with insurers using forced wellness checkups to "better price" their products, and expose us not only to this financial jeopardy but the physical jeopardy of being involved with more medical interactions when in the US today medical error is the third leading cause of death.
Are these the Democrat consumer "protections" of which the silly Mr. Sargent boasts? Apparently so.
Then Mr. Sargent indulges his hateful rhetoric condemning the poor whites who put Trump in office, lecturing, "Elections have consequences." First, that's a lot of poor people, half a country, hardly a testament to the great Obama policies. Second, even Sargent has to admit that many people obtained coverage of all colors but then gleefully warns that many of those damned poor, white Trump voters will lose their fabulous Obamacare.
Hateful rhetoric but not surprising. Stupid because in his ignorance Mr. Sargent really doesn't give a damn about Americans, only agendas.
Mr. Sargent ignores the issues that he could use his bully pulpit to promote, those issues where Obamacare failed our citizenry, including the outright lies used to sell it, similar to the lies being used to perpetuate it. It was sloppy, imperfect legislation that represented throwing the American people under the bus as GOVERNMENT and INSURANCE COMPANIES PARTNERED to save money spent on citizens.
Sure, Republicans in government want the same thing, and perhaps Mr. Sargent can give up his dusty "GO HILLARY" T-shirt and consider tackling the bipartisan problem of public employees imposing draconian health measures on a population even as they preserve their own outdated and super-generous employment, post-employment packages at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Perhaps Sargent might find some relevance if he focused on reality, that today Democrat and Republican public employees are milking citizens dry for their own benefits both the faux liberals and hypocritical Republicans in Congress who need not worry about living with what they're imposing on the rest of us (including superior health benefits since they exempted themselves from Obamacare. They don't like the word exempt but the loophole is an exemption that the Federal government is their employer therefore if their employer gives them superior benefits, then they're exempt from Obamacare ignoring that up to 72 percent of their premiums are paid by us, the taxpayers).
This is why the real goal for consumers is that whatever program these self-interested bi-partisan moochers in Congress put forth, we must insist that they MUST provide that they are bound by it FIRST not last and not, as the case is now with our Democratic administration, never.
As a new "faux" liberal, (I choose to identify with the true liberals not the new faux liberals), sadly, Greg Sargent's article is EXHIBIT A today of the persistence of Obamacare fanboys, the stubborn adherence to the Obamacare lies that even all these years later some are using in cheap imitation of President Obama's artfully untruthful selling of his plan to the American people years ago.
Mr. Sargent plunges into the ONLY lasting justification given for Obamacare as its original promises were proven false, the enrollment spiel. Why? Because on other fronts it failed for most Americans who are paying more for worse coverage, the same old insurance game. Obamacare did not save every family $2,500 a year in premiums, quite the contrary. Obamacare did NOT hold costs down, they increased even as coverage worsened, the same old problem. Obamacare did not get participation on its exchanges either by insurers or individuals in the manner it hoped and the idea of the single risk pool never got off the ground as young-healthies in the awful Obama economy sought cheaper coverage through their parents, through schools, through short-term health insurance plans and if those didn't work by choosing the cheapest of the metal plans offered, the bronze.
And then Mr. Sargent points to the phony "core philosophical difference," between the new faux liberals and conservatives. Here's the problem, Obamacare was and is a mess largely because BOTH Democrats AND Republicans out-maneuvered the American people and partnered with INSURANCE COMPANIES to save both government and insurers money.
I wonder where Mr. Sargent is experiencing what he describes when he says that "conservatives want far less in government spending and regulations designed to cover poor and sick people, protect consumers and enforce a minimum standard for coverage."
After all, the DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION (government) stopped counting how much it spent on infrastructure, staffing, and sweet federal benefits for its employees even as it bragged that it had "SAVED" on PER CAPITA spending for everyday citizens. Does Mr. Sargent understand that the government savings on how much it spends on people's medical bills in an environment with rising prices for those medical services is only accomplished by covering less? Apparently not.
As far as those poor poor people, did Mr. Sargent read what his fellow prevaricator, Jonathan Gruber, who talked about scamming us because of the stupidity of American voters had to explain this year regarding Medicaid enrollment with increases of 12 million "even though two-fifths of states are still unwilling to take advantage of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and the massive federal funding that comes with it," ttp://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/obamacare-what-we-didnt-see-coming-000170? Apparently not, as Gruber attributed the bursting enrollment to people who were ALREADY eligible for Medicaid who came "out of the woodwork" and enrolled. OK, so lots of Medicaid enrollees won't lose coverage.
And lest the faux liberal forget, Obamacare subsidies as well as its individual mandate was largely unconcerned with poor Americans who can't pay for health insurance. Perhaps Sargent should refresh his memory to see who's EXEMPT from both coverage and the fines for non-coverage because they're just too poor (go to healthcare.gov) including victims of domestic violence, the homeless, those who have had their utilities turned off, those who have been evicted and those who have unpaid medical debt. That's a lot of poor people who Obama essentially thumbed his nose at because, let's face, you can't get blood from a stone.
As for the kindly "minimum coverage standards," they became another tool used by payers, both government and insurers to stick it to us, encouraging defensive medicine (by guaranteeing payment for testing while making sure we pay more for NEEDED care), forcing us to jump through hoops in order to obtain care or even coverage as employers cooperate with insurers using forced wellness checkups to "better price" their products, and expose us not only to this financial jeopardy but the physical jeopardy of being involved with more medical interactions when in the US today medical error is the third leading cause of death.
Are these the Democrat consumer "protections" of which the silly Mr. Sargent boasts? Apparently so.
Then Mr. Sargent indulges his hateful rhetoric condemning the poor whites who put Trump in office, lecturing, "Elections have consequences." First, that's a lot of poor people, half a country, hardly a testament to the great Obama policies. Second, even Sargent has to admit that many people obtained coverage of all colors but then gleefully warns that many of those damned poor, white Trump voters will lose their fabulous Obamacare.
Hateful rhetoric but not surprising. Stupid because in his ignorance Mr. Sargent really doesn't give a damn about Americans, only agendas.
Mr. Sargent ignores the issues that he could use his bully pulpit to promote, those issues where Obamacare failed our citizenry, including the outright lies used to sell it, similar to the lies being used to perpetuate it. It was sloppy, imperfect legislation that represented throwing the American people under the bus as GOVERNMENT and INSURANCE COMPANIES PARTNERED to save money spent on citizens.
Sure, Republicans in government want the same thing, and perhaps Mr. Sargent can give up his dusty "GO HILLARY" T-shirt and consider tackling the bipartisan problem of public employees imposing draconian health measures on a population even as they preserve their own outdated and super-generous employment, post-employment packages at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Perhaps Sargent might find some relevance if he focused on reality, that today Democrat and Republican public employees are milking citizens dry for their own benefits both the faux liberals and hypocritical Republicans in Congress who need not worry about living with what they're imposing on the rest of us (including superior health benefits since they exempted themselves from Obamacare. They don't like the word exempt but the loophole is an exemption that the Federal government is their employer therefore if their employer gives them superior benefits, then they're exempt from Obamacare ignoring that up to 72 percent of their premiums are paid by us, the taxpayers).
This is why the real goal for consumers is that whatever program these self-interested bi-partisan moochers in Congress put forth, we must insist that they MUST provide that they are bound by it FIRST not last and not, as the case is now with our Democratic administration, never.
0 Response to "Too Soon to be Mourning Obamacare: We Still have it"
Posting Komentar